Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Clerics: What You Get

So let’s start this off with a good hard look at why you
need a cleric in your game. Actually, “why” is not really the right question…I
mean, you don’t need any particular class really (you could have a classless
RPG and just pick a number of “add-ons” or “skills” for your character,
right?). What I mean is, let’s discuss what it is that the cleric provides to the game.

Now, there’re a couple things we need to throw out, right
off the bat. First off, we need to throw any thought that the cleric gives us
“variety.” Sure, of course it does. All classes provide variety or options, and
if your sole priority is having moreoptions you end up adding a gazillion new
classes and races to the game (see D&D post 1999, or even 2nd
edition AD&D “kits”). If that's your main reason for keeping the cleric in
your game, then you might as well stop reading now ‘cause there’s no reasoning
with you.

After we throw that out as a reason for keeping the
cleric, we need to also throw out any reason for keeping it based on
self-perpetuating expectations. This is any line of reasoning that runs “well,
the cleric class has always been in the game” or “even World of Warcraft has a
priest class.” Just F that noise, okay? This is deconstruction, and we’re
looking at REAL CONCRETE PLAYABLE ASPECTS OF THE CLASS. If we decide we can
live without the cleric (which we might), that might lead us to creating
differentexpectations down the road. Certainly there are a lot of expectations
that have been attached to fantasy RPGs over the years that (IMO) need to be
reexamined anyway…like the stupidity that WotC holds up as the “foundation” of
D&D.

No, what I want to look at is what does the inclusion of the cleric class give you that its exclusion would cost you? Variety? No: you
can always add more classes (maybe a beastmaster!). Expectation? No: we’re
doing this in part to change expectation. I’m looking at the direct impact the
character class has in-game; how does the cleric’s inclusion (or lack thereof)
affect game play?

And since I want to make this a POSITIVE exercise, I’m
going to try to look only at POSITIVE EFFECTS. For example, some might say
“including the cleric makes the game cheesy,” or “forces at least one player to
take up a support role as the party medic,” or “wrecks any chance of a gritty
sword & sorcery feel to your game.” These phrases are not positive and thus
not helpful. When I say I want to look at what the cleric gives you by its
inclusion, I mean the positive, “thanks we needed that in the game” things.

Okay…everyone groks the ground rules? Let’s start.

For my purposes, it’s not all that helpful to look at the
later iterations of the cleric class…that is, it’s not useful to look at the
class as it’s changed over the years (whether you’re talking D20 or 2nd
Edition or even B/X). Why not? Because by the time those later iterations of
the cleric came about the cat was “already out of the bag,” so to speak. The
cleric was in the game from the get go, and as a major player (one of the
original three classes) so any changes/variations in class abilities or spells
or whatnot can be viewed simply as “tweaks” to bring the class more firmly
in-line with the present edition of D&D and/or balancing certain aspects of
an already existing class based on feedback from actual play/players.

*whew* That last bit was a mouthful. What it means is that I’m only looking at OD&D, where this whole cleric mess started.

Now the origin of the cleric class as a playable PC type
is fairly well-documented (or well enough for my purposes): in the primordial
soup days (before OD&D was actually published), the wargamers who were
playing this “thing” were sometimes placed in adversarial roles to each other.
This isn’t all that strange to me (as I saw a lot of adversarial relationships
between PCs back in my early AD&D days), but for youngsters raised on the
“let’s all cooperate together” versions of D&D (basically, any version from
Mentzer to the present) this may seem pretty alien. Nowadays, the most you
hear/see is some light ribbing at the table and the occasional paralyzed PC
being teabagged by a companion…but it was different in my youth when high level
play often meant pitting (PC) political powers against each other, or when
rivals clashed (over love and/or loot) and vendettas were enacted against each
other.

ANYWAY…back in the primordial ooze days, one PC managed
to get turned into a vampire (I assume in the usual fashion, but perhaps he’d
been allowed to start play as one), and used his brains along with his vampiric
powers to excellent effect against the other PCs of the campaign. Sir Fang was,
apparently, a nightmare in the hands of this particular PC, and as a method of
“balancing” his impact on the campaign, a Van Helsing-style holy man was
introduced as another PC’s character. This “anti-vampire” character was the
basis for the cleric class…at least once it was mashed with a couple historic
figures and given some typical holy powers similar to what one finds in the
Bible (especially the New Testament). The cleric as a class was included in
Book 1 of the LBBs, and has been with us ever since.

Of course, by the time of OD&D we actually have
something that looks like TWO classes: a “cleric” and an “evil priest” (which
becomes an “Evil High Priest” or EHP and appears to have been a major villain
type in OD&D). We’ll be talking about the EHP, too, since including “good”
clerics mean including their reverse as well.

So what are the attributes of a cleric in OD&D?

1.Their prime requisite is Wisdom.

2.They have HPs and attack ability nearly
equivalent to a fighting man of the same level (and thus a little better
ability in this regard than the magic-user).

3.They have the ability to wear all armor and use
shields.

4.They are restricted in their use of edged
weapons, and specifically precluded from magic swords and arrows, the purview
of the fighter (and generally more important with regard to Chainmail).

5.They have the ability to turn undead which, in
OD&D, includes the following monsters: skeletons, zombies, ghouls, wights,
wraiths, mummies, specters, and vampires.

6.Beginning at 2nd level they have the
ability to cast spells, using a substantially different list than the
magic-user (i.e. most spells are new, and many of them modeled on Biblical
accounts of prophets, saints, Apostles, Moses, and Jesus). EHPs have the
ability to reverse certain spells to cause evil effect (it is stated that
Lawful clerics will do so only in direst need).

7.A high level cleric receives divine aid (“extra
funds”) when building a stronghold and attracts legions of “faithful” followers
assuming they’ve been “true” to their faith.

8.They have some alignment restrictions, being
forced to choose between Law and Chaos…i.e. “good” and “evil”…in order to
advance beyond a certain level.

9.They are restricted to the human race (no elves,
dwarves, or hobbits).

And that’s it…nothing else distinguishes the cleric from
either of the other adventurer classifications presented in Original Dungeons
& Dragons.

So of those nine attributes, which ones are pertinent to
the discussion at hand?

#1 No. In OD&D the three prime requisites (STR, INT,
and WIS for fighters, magic-users, and clerics respectively) have NO MECHANICAL
IN-GAME EFFECT, save that they describe how good a class is at its “profession”
(a high prime req gives a character a bonus to earned XP, thus facilitating rapid
rise in level, while a low prime req carries a penalty to the same). Without
the inclusion of the cleric class in OD&D, you might as well remove wisdom as an ability score. It serves a mechanical purpose solely for the cleric
class; it can be surmised that it was only added as an ability score because of
the inclusion of the cleric as a class. It adds nothing, so is not pertinent.

#2 Not particularly. In a way the cleric sets a
“baseline” for PC combat ability (HPs and attack chance) with fighters being “a
little better” and magic-users being “a little worse.” Without the cleric
class, one of these other classes serve as the baseline with the other being
exemplary (if the MU is baseline) or hopeless/pathetic (if the fighter is
baseline).

#3 No. There’s nothing special about the ability to wear
armor. The fact that magic-users cannot is notable…it indicates a restriction
of some sort based on their magic. In another game, if being unable to wear
armor was “the norm” than the cleric (like the fighter) would have an
“exceptional ability.” However, such does not appear to be the case here (there
are no armor restrictions for other humans in the monster section)…the
magic-user class with its LACK of armor is exceptional (i.e. exceptionally
bad). This isn’t worth mentioning.

#4 No. Similar to the magic-user’s lack of armor, the
restriction on weapons is a lacking on the cleric’s part as other humans are
not so penalized. This is a restriction; one purported to be based on a
historic figure (a crusading priest who did not use blades as he did not want
to “spill blood”), but is more likely included in aid of “game balance”
(allowing fighters a certain niche protection when it comes to magic weapons).
This is more important with the use of the Chainmail combat system as magic
swords and magic arrows have specific rules. Likewise the inclusion of other
magic weapons AND an alternative combat system in OD&D renders this a
useless restriction for the most part…a magic mace or hammer (both useable by
the cleric) has the same attack ability as a magic sword and does BETTER damage
(in OD&D, magic swords do not add their “+” to damage and they top out at
+3 just like the cleric weapons; ALSO, in OD&D there is no variable damage
by weapon type…all weapons do D6 damage). Since this is a RESTRICTION, probably
done in the name of game balance, it does not add anything to the game. It thus
doesn’t bear as part of the discussion.

#5 Yes. We will discuss turning undead below.

#6 Yes. We will discuss the cleric’s unique spell list below.

#7 Yes, this should be included in the conversation,
though its value is dubious. Clerics require less XP to advance in level, and
thus achieve a higher level with a lesser acquisition of gold than the
fighting-man. Having a rule that allows them to increase their funds for
strongholds allow them to build castles at an equivalent level, even with a
lesser treasury. By the same token, the cleric’s attraction of loyal followers
cuts down the costs associated with hiring mercenaries to stock said
stronghold. It may be hypothesized that some of this rule was included to give
a newly created character class (in the primordial days) a “leg up” when it
came to catching up to the baronies of longstanding, existing PCs of the
campaign: the newly minted Van Helsing character getting a boost when it came
to building a stronghold in opposition to that of Lord Fang’s evil barony.
However, what it also adds (which I find more compelling) is a ROLE-PLAYING
REQUIREMENT not found in either of the other basic classes. The player must pay
attention to the tenets of his faith/alignment in order to receive these
benefits. This is a marked departure compared to the other classes (who have no
such strictures) and encourages role-playing “in character” for the cleric PC.
That being said, I’d prefer to have some sort of “role-playing reward” system
in place for ALL character types, not just the cleric(!) and it’s difficult to
pin this as a “pro” of including the character in the game. It only
affects/impacts the cleric PC (and only if he’s pursuing endgame action) only
indirectly impacting game play for other (non-cleric) PCs.

#8 A very hesitant yes. As with #7, this actually
encourages role-playing and sets up potential drama and conflict in the game.
However, it impacts other players at the table even less directly than #7,
especially in light of the lack of mechanical consequences/effects of
alignment. If I say, “all clerics must have blue hair” or some other cosmetic
difference, it DOES distinguish the PC from other classes, but it really
doesn’t add anything, nor impact game play.

#9 No. As a restriction (and another one tied mainly to a
stylistic choice), this attribute adds nothing to game with the cleric’s
inclusion.

So there. As suspected there are only really TWO things
the cleric class really brings to the table that have a real impact on game
play, both for themselves and for others. Those things are:

3 comments:

Great post. This actually helped me clarify some thoughts on my own "Priest" class for my own game. The distinguishing feature is solely the Priest's access to "Prayers" -- a Divine-themed Spell list -- as I've completely stripped the game down.

I'm actually creating a "Persona"-like (the JRPG) Spell system for Priests where they attune themselves to "Saints" (immortal uploaded quasi-consciousnesses) for access to certain abilities, so it will end up looking very different from Magic-user Spells.

How about: a way for a human spell caster to wear armor? Prior to the thief, the cleric is the jack of all trades class for the human. (Assuming you keep the elf fighter/magic-user or elf single class ).

That's what I see mechanically.I rather like them for their roleplaying aspects, which I agree are not so explicit. I have some disagreements with your ground rules, but it's your game :)